Taxpayers to foot Pinochet's legal bill

Taxpayers will fund the lion's share of the huge legal bill generated by General Augusto Pinochet's struggle against a Spanish bid to extradite him, it emerged today.

Issuing a costs order on four key court hearings, the House of Lords, acting in its judicial capacity, directed that in two of them the 83-year-old former Chilean dictator's costs should be paid from public funds, and that the publicly-funded Crown Prosecution Service should pay its own costs.

Although they did not detail the costs, unofficial estimates of the legal expenses in the long-running saga have put them at anything up to £6m. The Law Lords' directions on costs were:

 The initial October hearing at the High Court before the Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham, which granted General Pinochet immunity - each side to bear its own costs.

 The successful appeal against that decision by the CPS, on behalf of the Spanish authorities, to the House of Lords in November - General Pinochet's costs to be paid from Central (ie public) Funds, the CPS to bear its own costs.

 December's House of Lords hearing, which set aside the first Law Lords' decision because of concerns about perceived bias - Pinochet's costs to be paid from Central Funds, the CPS to bear its own costs.

 The final Lords hearing on the issue of head of state immunity, held in January and February, with the ruling handed down at the end of March - each side to bear its own costs.

Under the so-called "taxation" process, General Pinochet's lawyers will present their bills to the Clerk of the Parliaments who, as Registrar of the Court, will assess exactly how much should be paid.

Making the costs order, the Law Lords made no comment on the merits of the case against the general, nor the way it had been handled. But they said that the proceedings which led to the result of the first appeal being set aside would be assessed on an "indemnity basis" - which means that when Gen Pinochet's lawyers present their bills, virtually every item claimed will be allowed.

The CPS would say only that it was a matter for the court to determine the apportioning of costs, and that it would abide by the order.

Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lamont, a vociferous critic of Gen Pinochet's detention, said the costs order amounted to a "stinging rebuke" to home secretary Jack Straw, who authorised the extradition proceedings, and also to Lord Hoffmann.

"This expensive political farce should have been killed off long ago. Contrary to government fiction, the responsibility is not the courts', but the home secretary's." Lord Lamont said his own estimate of the case's costs was in the region of £2m and rising.

Professor Fernando Barros, of the pro-Pinochet Chilean Reconciliation Movement, described the costs order as "a Solomonic and reasonable decision". He said the decision to award the general's costs from Central Funds in the middle two hearings was only reasonable, given that the Law Lords' first decision on the case was later set aside because one of the panel, Lord Hoffmann, had failed to declare his links with Amnesty International.

He said that the general's British lawyers were being paid by the Chile-based Pinochet Foundation, which had been engaged in a fund-raising drive to raise money for the general's legal battle.

Following the latest hearing before them in January and February, the Law Lords ruled on March 24 - by a 6-1 majority - that Gen Pinochet did not enjoy blanket immunity from arrest and extradition in relation to crimes allegedly committed while he was head of state.

A full extradition hearing against the general is scheduled for Bow Street Magistrates Court in central London, to start on September 27. In the meantime, the general remains under armed police guard at a rented mansion on the exclusive Wentworth estate in Surrey.